|
|
Post by 2gijoseph on Jul 10, 2006 11:06:37 GMT -5
I would like to agree with the person who posted that new sports will increase enrollment--I read in the Rochester newspaper two weeks ago that six(6) senior players from a high school in the Binghamton, NY area all enrolled at the same time to St John Fisher College in Rochester, NY. to play mens Lacrosse..Tell that to Sr. Margaret--
|
|
|
|
Post by sneakers on Jul 10, 2006 11:23:37 GMT -5
I would like to agree with the person who posted that new sports will increase enrollment--I read in the Rochester newspaper two weeks ago that six(6) senior players from a high school in the Binghamton, NY area all enrolled at the same time to St John Fisher College in Rochester, NY. to play mens Lacrosse..Tell that to Sr. Margaret-- Let's see, what is tuition now at SBU? If it is $26,000 per year, that enrollment alone is worth $156,000 to the school. That pays for a professor's salary with money left over to help pay for the increased costs of heating the place. A full lacrosse team would have 25/30 new students. If it prompts some of their friends to come as well, all the better. At this point where we have fewer students than we would like, there are very few costs associated with this additional revenue. We have the facilities to add a couple hundred more students without much infrastructure investment, and it would give us the revenue to do some much needed upgrading. |
|
|
|
Post by Bona84 on Jul 10, 2006 11:50:47 GMT -5
Today's NY Times has a front page article on small colleges adding football programs - for the very reasons that they attract many new students, and add another attraction to campus life, etc. There are likely to be issues with adding a sport, such as Title IX, and scholarship issues given SBU's status as a Division 1 school. In any event, the topic, and article in the NY Times, are indeed interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbufan34 on Jul 10, 2006 12:25:58 GMT -5
tution is more like$30,000/ year. it was over 28 when i graduated 2 years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by sneakers on Jul 10, 2006 13:01:33 GMT -5
tution is more like$30,000/ year. it was over 28 when i graduated 2 years ago OK, then 30 new students at $30,000 would lead to $900,000 in additional revenue each year. Not a bad result. Football would be more like 100 or more students at $30,000 or $3 million. Seems to me to be something that should get serious consideration. The school should get off its butt and try something different. The sooner, the better. |
|
|
|
Post by softintheo on Jul 10, 2006 13:18:53 GMT -5
I don't want to sound like I am against this at all, but I think you are trying to simplify the equations with your math. Sure if 100 kids come into play football then at $30,000/yr per guy, sure that's $3 million. But in that your making some strong assumptions....like the fact that those kids are only drawn because of the football. Also, what if we aren't able to field a full team? I feel like there is the potential for a tough transition from no football to football. There would be some awful seasons as well as a whole new dynamic to campus life with a bunch of footbal players. Why did football go away in the first place? Would Ted Marchibroda come back and coach....Marchibroda is currently employed by the Colts as a radio analyst. -- Thank you wikipedia. tution is more like$30,000/ year. it was over 28 when i graduated 2 years ago OK, then 30 new students at $30,000 would lead to $900,000 in additional revenue each year. Not a bad result. Football would be more like 100 or more students at $30,000 or $3 million. Seems to me to be something that should get serious consideration. The school should get off its butt and try something different. The sooner, the better. |
|
clubber
Sophomore Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by clubber on Jul 10, 2006 13:38:18 GMT -5
Iona College will bring in 50+ paying football players.
State Representation of the class
NY-29
NJ-11
CA-8
Colorado-3
Penn-3
MD-2
NC,FL,Mass-1 each
The Football program, in cooperation with the Admissions Dept will hold an Open House next Weds.
Adding non-scholarship football would enhance visibility and marketing opportunities for the school and help admissions.
Soft, no need to worry about the transition, it would not be that difficult.
|
|
heemeehead
Freshman Member
Don't Forget Scumbag!
Posts: 96
|
Post by heemeehead on Jul 10, 2006 13:50:57 GMT -5
Iona College will bring in 50+ paying football players. State Representation of the class NY-29 NJ-11 CA-8 Colorado-3 Penn-3 MD-2 NC,FL,Mass-1 each The Football program, in cooperation with the Admissions Dept will hold an Open House next Weds. Adding non-scholarship football would enhance visibility and marketing opportunities for the school and help admissions. Soft, no need to worry about the transition, it would not be that difficult. To boot, Iona College's Football program is terrible. They do have one thing--rich alumni. |
|
heemeehead
Freshman Member
Don't Forget Scumbag!
Posts: 96
|
Post by heemeehead on Jul 10, 2006 13:53:23 GMT -5
I don't want to sound like I am against this at all, but I think you are trying to simplify the equations with your math. Sure if 100 kids come into play football then at $30,000/yr per guy, sure that's $3 million. But in that your making some strong assumptions....like the fact that those kids are only drawn because of the football. Also, what if we aren't able to field a full team? I feel like there is the potential for a tough transition from no football to football. There would be some awful seasons as well as a whole new dynamic to campus life with a bunch of footbal players. Why did football go away in the first place? Would Ted Marchibroda come back and coach....Marchibroda is currently employed by the Colts as a radio analyst. -- Thank you wikipedia. OK, then 30 new students at $30,000 would lead to $900,000 in additional revenue each year. Not a bad result. Football would be more like 100 or more students at $30,000 or $3 million. Seems to me to be something that should get serious consideration. The school should get off its butt and try something different. The sooner, the better. TITLE IX won't let this happen. We also recently had a discussion about the academic standards. How are the academic standards and the high acceptance rate going to be affected by FOOTBALL? Also, discussions of baskeball teams and fighting--imagine the pain the FOOTBALL players will inflict. |
|
|
|
Post by sneakers on Jul 10, 2006 14:04:17 GMT -5
I don't want to sound like I am against this at all, but I think you are trying to simplify the equations with your math. Sure if 100 kids come into play football then at $30,000/yr per guy, sure that's $3 million. But in that your making some strong assumptions....like the fact that those kids are only drawn because of the football. Also, what if we aren't able to field a full team? I feel like there is the potential for a tough transition from no football to football. There would be some awful seasons as well as a whole new dynamic to campus life with a bunch of footbal players. Why did football go away in the first place? Would Ted Marchibroda come back and coach....Marchibroda is currently employed by the Colts as a radio analyst. -- Thank you wikipedia. You are right that I am guilty of simplifying things. However, the colleges discussed in the NYT article saw their enrollment increase by about 200 students after they added football. It said for each football player they added they would often get a friend or a sibling of that player to attend as well as students that are interested in cheerleading, band or just in watching college football and experiencing that atmosphere. That seems to square with Clubber information above that Iona gets about 50 football players in each class. Going by the experience that other colleges have had, I don't think we would have any problem fielding a team. There are many high school students that are limiting their applications only to schools where they think they can play football (or lacrosse, or ice hockey, or golf, etc.) You are also correct that there would be a bunch of lean years as far as our won/loss record, but we would know that going into it and many colleges have made a successful transition into football and now have winning records. I have also omitted any increased expenses that would come from fielding a team. Obviously there will be expenses associated with adding such a program. However, the expenses won't come anywhere near the amount of increased revenue and we could not buy this kind of exposure from marketing perspective. You are also correct that a new bunch of football players would change the school's dynamics, however I would not assume that they would be changed for the worse. Every new incoming class at school changes the dynamics. I think having continually shrinking class sizes and huge budgetary issues changes the dynamics much more (and I would go out on a limb and say that these changes are for the worse). |
|
|
|
Post by sneakers on Jul 10, 2006 14:15:07 GMT -5
TITLE IX won't let this happen. We also recently had a discussion about the academic standards. How are the academic standards and the high acceptance rate going to be affected by FOOTBALL? Also, discussions of baskeball teams and fighting--imagine the pain the FOOTBALL players will inflict. Title IX would not prohibit this from happening. Otherwise how could other colleges have football programs? Title IX is managable, although we may need to add to women's sports offereings as well. Not a bad idea, frankly. I don't think academic standards are decreased by having a football team. There are plenty of intelligent football players. Harvard, Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, etc. all have football teams. I don't think their academic standards are impacted negatively. In the case of some colleges, having football has actually increased their academic standards. Look at BC for example. The "Flutie Factor" has increased applications about 1,000% in the last 20 years. Granted ACC Division 1 football is slightly more exciting than what we are talking about, but nonetheless increased applications is the first step to becoming more selective. As far as the comment about basketball players fighting, I don't see the connection. All college kids will make their share of mistakes, including football players. I played rugby for 10 years, and believe me I saw my share of people making mistakes. Should we then not have a rugby club (this is a hypothetical question as I am sure there are many out there who would want this to be the case  ). |
|
heemeehead
Freshman Member
Don't Forget Scumbag!
Posts: 96
|
Post by heemeehead on Jul 10, 2006 15:11:29 GMT -5
Should we then not have a rugby club (this is a hypothetical question as I am sure there are many out there who would want this to be the case ). As long as Spruce Bruce doesn't run it... |
|
clubber
Sophomore Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by clubber on Jul 11, 2006 12:14:55 GMT -5
heemee,
The main reason for starting a NON-scholarship program is to enhance enrollment, not to play Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. I think the Iona College example proves the point. There are plenty of quality NON-scholarship programs out there like Duquesne and Dayton.
Go ask anyone in admissions if they wouldn't want those 50+ PAYING students from 9 different states, they would take them in a heartbeat.
|
|
heemeehead
Freshman Member
Don't Forget Scumbag!
Posts: 96
|
Post by heemeehead on Jul 11, 2006 13:13:03 GMT -5
heemee, The main reason for starting a NON-scholarship program is to enhance enrollment, not to play Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. I think the Iona College example proves the point. There are plenty of quality NON-scholarship programs out there like Duquesne and Dayton. Go ask anyone in admissions if they wouldn't want those 50+ PAYING students from 9 different states, they would take them in a heartbeat. How sure are you that Iona College is a non-scholarship program? New Rochelle is on my way home, heck I went to Iona Prep and can find out for sure--I will ask one of my local fireman who was on the squad a few years back. As far as the Orange Bowl, I know we wouldn't be playing at that level. I also know that your example is an admissionists wet dream. Someone said something about some starvin school in Oregon having to forfeit...I don't think this will be the case. You can grab someone off Dev beach, get them plowed enough, suit em up, and convince them they are Brian Urlacher, and they will do it. I would have. |
|
|
|
Post by steviecsbabygirl on Jul 11, 2006 13:45:34 GMT -5
the "starvin" school in Oregon has a $180 million endowment as compared to SBU's $ 33 million endowment....they are far from starvin.... Please understand that I am not looking for a rap battle or any other sort of battle. I am just looking to bring a balance to the topic of the addition of football and other sports to sbu. The addition of sport programs can certainly up the enrollment but you cannot be blind to the costs involved and the state of the current athletic programs. I came across an article that offers a fairly balanced view of a college and it's decision to keep it's football program. It can be found at: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archives/2005/11/12/SPGL7FNCB31.DTLWhen you read the article please note the annual cost to run the program ($300,000 and this is NON-SCHOLARSHIP) and also where the vast majority of that funding comes from. This is a west coast school so costs are high and I understand their travel would be more than at sbu. It is not an apples to apples comparison, yet it does give some perspective on things. I am all for sbu moving in a positive direction. I am not completely against adding football or other sports. I am, however, realistic about the massive task this would be and the low probability of these things becoming a reality. Sorry if that rains on your parade or shakes you awake from your dream. may you all have enough in your life |
|
).